- 1International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, ECE, Laxenburg, Austria
- 2ClimateWorks, San Francisco, United States
- 3College of Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University, Kusatsu, Japan
- 4Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam, Germany
- 5Global Energy Systems Analysis, Faculty of Process Science, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- 6Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, UK
- 7Grantham Institute for Climate Change and Environment, Imperial College London, London, UK
- 8School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- 9Climate Resource S GmbH, Berlin, Germany, Energy
- 10PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands
- 11Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Global emissions scenarios describe the nature and pace of future transitions. As such, they have been critical to inform international policy and efforts to limit global warming to specific levels. Since the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), the global mitigation landscape has changed substantially, yet many scenario-based benchmarks continue to rely on static assessments. The Scenario Compass Initiative (SCI) responds to this gap by providing a continuously updated, transparent, and curated collection of global emissions scenarios, combined with a systematic benchmarking framework that tracks how mitigation requirements evolve over time.
SCI introduces a novel “live” scenario collection approach that enables ongoing submission, vetting, and release of scenarios, ensuring timely access while maintaining quality control. Scenarios are assessed against feasibility and sustainability criteria, allowing the identification of a policy-relevant subset without relying on statistical outlier exclusion. Building on this curated ensemble, SCI derives benchmarks across key mitigation dimensions, including near-term emissions reductions, renewable energy deployment, net-zero timing, and reliance on net-negative emissions.
Comparing current benchmarks with those underlying AR6 reveals a marked shift in feasible mitigation pathways. The most ambitious AR6 category—characterized by immediate, steep emissions reductions and minimal temperature overshoot—has effectively become unattainable given observed emissions trends and delayed action. As a result, benchmarks for near-term mitigation, net-zero timing, and carbon dioxide removal have all shifted accordingly. At the same time, while quantitative assumptions span wide numerical ranges, most scenarios continue to rely on a narrow set of underlying socioeconomic narratives aligned with SSP1 and SSP2.
This presentation will inform about the updated benchmarks which provide critical reference points for interpreting contemporary scenarios and for supporting robust, policy-relevant climate decision-making.
How to cite: Scheifinger, K., Riahi, K., Clarke, L., Huppmann, D., Hasegawa, T., Luderer, G., Smith, C., Kriegler, E., Rogelj, J., Nicholls, Z., van Vuuren, D., van Ruijven, B., Dekker, M., Verpoort, P., Beath, H., and Sher, G.: Key Benchmarks of Global Emissions Scenarios 2025: Annual update of integrated assessment scenarios and related benchmarks for limiting global warming, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-12960, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-12960, 2026.